Use of generative artificial intelligence in official records prohibited, and civil remedies and enforcement provided.
Summary
HF4536 would prohibit Minnesota government entities from using artificial intelligence, specifically generative AI, to create official records or drafts of official records. The bill defines artificial intelligence broadly, but excludes technologies used only to dictate or automatically generate captions. It also defines “official record” to include recorded information created, received, or maintained by a government entity that documents official actions, policies, decisions, or functions.
The bill requires drafts of official records to be retained for as long as the final record is retained. It also authorizes enforcement by the attorney general under Minnesota’s consumer protection enforcement statute and creates a private right of action for any individual to seek equitable or declaratory relief. A prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs, but a person must give the government entity 90 days’ written notice before filing suit so the entity has an opportunity to cure the alleged violation.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new chapter 13E to Minnesota Statutes and impose a statewide restriction on how public agencies prepare official records. It would affect state and local government entities covered by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act definition, requiring them to avoid generative AI in record creation and to preserve drafts for the same retention period as final records. The bill would also create new enforcement exposure for public bodies through attorney general action and private civil litigation.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests a policy-focused measure aimed at limiting AI use in government recordkeeping rather than a controversial partisan proposal. The bill’s structure indicates concern about accuracy, accountability, and transparency in official records. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, no clear support or opposition can be identified from the available materials.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the breadth of the prohibition on generative AI, which bars its use not only in final official records but also in drafts. Government entities may view this as restrictive or administratively burdensome, especially for routine drafting or productivity tools. Another likely issue is enforcement: the bill allows both attorney general action and private lawsuits, which could raise concerns about litigation risk, compliance costs, and whether the 90-day notice period is sufficient to resolve disputes before suit.
An act to amend Section 6173 of, and to add Section 6068.1 to, the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Section 128.7 of, and to add Sections 180 and 1282.1 to, the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil proceedings.